1014 County of Glamorgan

dunno bout dat..Borough of Thamesdown has a ring to it though

 

Is the 28XX boiler smaller than the original 47XX design?

 

the 47xx was originally fitted with the type of boiler fitted to the 28xx but later refitted with a larger design.

 

it would be entirely correct to fit a No1 boiler ex 28xx, but of course then you couldn't paint it in BR(WR) livery

 

The original 47XX spec had a No.1 boiler, common to the 28XX and others. A new boiler design No 7 was fitted uniquely to the 47XX from 1921 although it was planned for use on other classes, weight restrictions confined it to the 47s.
So 4709 will be as originally built, until a new boiler is constructed presumably, which seems to be at odds with policy of not building a correct boiler for 1014

 

All I've seen about the boiler from any GWS source is design work for a Std 7 size smokebox and notes on what will be required to cut down the loco for a Std 7 boiler to fit. But I have seen what appears to be speculation from non GWS sources.

 

4709 will be as the first member of the class was built:

I suspect that, with a Std No 1 boiler, the loco won't have the physical presence that it would with a No 7 boiler. It will be, in effect, a 28xx with larger wheels. If it were to go mainline, the larger boiler would be needed, but I don't expect it ever will as, by the time it's complete, the loading gauge everywhere will be too narrow. I don't think I'll ever see it with a No 7 boiler on it, sadly.

 

For the costs associated with restoring a second hand ex - Barry no. 1 boiler it would not be a huge extra amount to build a no. 7 , which would have a lower maintenance requirement for twenty plus years.

Bob.

 

you could argue the same about the County boiler

 

Thanks for the corrections.
With a No1 boiler I'd thought it akin to a Grange with an extra set of drivers and slightly bigger cylinders.
Obviously there is a great deal of wisdom gained through hindsight but you can't help but feel the County and 4709 boiler decisions are both rather ill conceived, as if the heart has over ruled the head a bit in the eagerness to fill the perceived gaps.

 

Didcot pick-n-mix.

 

What you see when you look at a loco is the boiler cladding, though, and there's no reason why that couldn't be made to the No. 7 boiler dimensions - it would look right and the No. 1boiler capacity would be perfectly adequate for Didcot and heritage railway use.

 

I stand to be corrected but at 280 psi with a copper inner fire box is possibly starting to push it: with higher pressure the temperature increases
- see steam tables - and the strength of the copper is decreased by this.
At 300 psi I believe every thing that ran had steel fireboxes but that might be just because it happened in the USA and Germany who habitually generally used
steel fireboxes. The use of 280 psi with a copper box in the No 15 boiler on the post war Counties is as far as I know unique and the only experience.
However there seems to be very little detail as to just why the pressure was lowered and there may well be now, sixty years later, much better understanding
of what the exact strength of the material would be. (There are certainly very promising advances in the understanding of boiler design using modern computer techniques - see some of the stuff on boilers here under Mutual Improvement Classes - but changing the boiler design, rather than using these techniques to
validate it, would probably mean much extra time and expense getting the new design passed.)

With the original double chimney and pressure it went like a bomb. On a spark arresting trial going up the Golden Valley from Standish Junction to Sapperton,
.with the ashing out doors wedged ajar to get enough air under the grate, it gave 2000 hp. Sadly this was not followed up at the the time, there seemed to
be no encouragement from above. Now it would be very useful to retain paths on the main line.

Didcot have carefully and systematically built the engine with everything checked and approved to run wherever it can on Network Rail
and I hope it will be extended to good effect. A great deal of detailed care has gone into it both where it is and at Tysley.

 

Probably so but then you have to question what is the objective of these projects - new build close to original design or "looky-likey"?

 

Even Tornado is a look alike. Good Yorkshire copper is so hard to find these days.

 

Re 4709: dilating on June 20th as to why it might be rather good on the main line I seemed to have collapsed any additions to the
"Current and Proposed New Builds" thread.

I Think a great benefit of a higher pressure - which would be doable - is that you could
fit smaller cylinders, retain the tractive effort, and improve the clearance to retain the route availability. As is being done for the
Gresley P2 2-8-2.

What has happened with County of Glamorgan has been unhappy and has not helped fund raising.
Giving 4709 its proper boiler would do something to redress that and retrieve the compromised reputation.
I certainly have kept my powder dry to support it - the final Churchward boiler, the No 7, grate area 30 sq ft.
And review the design for 250 psi. Enhance it so it can go places rather than compromise it.

 

It has been used (in a number of different political contexts) to explain why actors refused to abandon seemingly destructive paths. Why opportunities were not taken when they presented themselves etc. It boils down to the fact that short term costs are deemed to be too great. Actors at the time view the short term costs as higher than the long term costs, although invariably what we see is that the long term costs were greater.

it is nearly always used to try to explain disastrous outcomes that should have been obvious to anyone involved in the situation.

 

And numbered 814, as it is now only 80% of a proper County.

It all seems a bit of a farce. A bit off topic, but mention was made earlier of King George. Anyone know its current status? It was taken apart rapidly after purchase, and there are plenty of photos of the frames, but there doesn't seem to have been any real progress for a few years now. Too many people bodging mongrels together to actually overhaul anything?

 

There does appear to be a degree of GWS Didcot 'bashing' here.

As others have stated, the Hawksworth County recreation project was a product of it's time, with also the Vale of Glamorgan Council keen to rid itself of scrap metal it had inherited.

No one is 'bashing' the Bretton Grange project of the Llangollen Railway. It relied on the same pile of scrap at Barry owned by the Vale of Glamorgan Council, dissected and taken apart for various projects.

GWR King 6023 is storming up the Paignton-Kingswear line daily with it's new draughting. This is a GWS loco.

I think with hindsight the GWS overstretched itself in taking on too many projects some 10 years ago with the decision of the Vale of Glamorgan Council to rid itself of it's scrap yard. All the GWS projects are well behind target, the County (Hawksworth), 47XX, and Saint. The Churchward 'County' 4-4-0 of recent appeal appears to be indicative of an organisation that is not keeping grips on reality, and of course Pendennis Castle is also way behind schedule.

But lets look at the pint half full...

Pendennis Castle is in the UK and nearing completion. 6023 is at work on tour delighting very many. The GWS deserves a big degree of thanks in having the only currently operating GWR King!

Cheers,

Julian

 

I don't think it is bashing when the criticisms are fair and valid.

I think one of the issues with regard to Didcot is that while they have been busy with all these new projects, the existing collection has been neglected. You have to admit that it is pretty embarrassing for an organization with a collection as large as Didcot to have to hire in locomotives.

The reality is that resources - human and financial have been directed towards projects like the County and away from things like the 14xx, Cookham Manor, Hinderton Hall, Burton Agnes, the broad gauge locos etc etc.

Didcot should be one of the crown jewels and magnet for people to visit. Sadly, it has been left behind by other railways.

No one criticises Llangollen because it is hard to point to any projects being delayed or having resources taken away from them by the Grange and Patriot projects.